Allowed¶56

Kerna Venkat Reddy v. Dr.Madiraju Ashok and 4 Others

Telangana HC18 Aug 2025CRP/4797/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution petition dismissal; auction purchaser rights; Order 21 Rule 85 CPC payment default; Order 21 Rule 58 CPC claim petition; restoration under Section 151 CPC; part satisfaction memo by decree holder; sale notice; attachment 19.03.2003; purchase pending attachment 30.06.2003; gift deed locus standi; stamp duty; Dussehra holidays explanation; remand for merits; Article 227; Senior Civil Judge Khammam; Sarasa Chit Funds; CRP No. 4797 of 2017; K. Sujana, J.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order dated 11.07.2017 in E.P. No.77 of 2003 in O.S. No.174 of 2001 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam set aside; matter remanded to the trial court for hearing on merits, giving opportunity to all parties, and expeditious disposal; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶56

Kerna Venkat Reddy Vs Dr.Madiraju Ashok and 4… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the auction purchaser's deposits (one-fourth of the bid amount plus poundage on the date of auction, and the balance on 13.10.2003) amounted to a default under Order 21 Rule 85 CPC, the delay being explained by Dussehra court holidays, and whether the trial court failed to consider these deposits. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

The payment of the total amount on 13.10.2003, explained as due to Dussehra holidays with the court closed and the amount deposited on the very re-opening day, had already been observed by the same court in the earlier petition filed for restoration of the E.P., and was not considered by the trial court.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

When a sale notice had already been issued and the auction purchaser had purchased the property, dismissal of the E.P. based only on the memo of the decree holder and claim petitioner is erroneous.

¶55

Key takeaways

The matter is to be remanded to the trial court to dispose of the same on merits by giving opportunity to all the parties.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (K. Sujana, J.) allowed a civil revision petition under Article 227 filed by an auction purchaser against the order dated 11.07.2017 in E.P. No.77 of 2003 in O.S. No.174 of 2001 (Senior Civil Judge, Khammam), whereby his Section 151 CPC petition for restoration of the execution petition was dismissed. Held: where a sale notice had already been issued and the auction purchaser had purchased the property in the court auction held on 22.09.2003 (highest bid Rs.9,65,000/-), dismissal of the E.P. solely on the memo of the decree holder and claim petitioner recording part satisfaction of Rs.4,50,000/- was erroneous; the deposit of the balance on 13.10.2003 stood explained by Dussehra court holidays, the court being closed and the amount deposited on the very re-opening day, as already observed by the same court in the earlier restoration petition; the matter was remanded to the trial court for disposal on merits after giving opportunity to all parties, expeditiously; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

I i

i I i I i I i I il

[³³⁸⁵ ]

: I i I I i I I i ! i

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶7

IVIONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶10

CIVIL REVISION P ETIT ION NO: 4797 OF 2017

¶11

Petition under Articre 227 of rhe constitution of rndia, aggrieved by the orders dated 11t07 /2017 passed in E. p. No.77l2003 in o. S. No.1 7 c-li}ot on tie f ile of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶12

Between:

¶13

[FR]II|^{V-ENKAT REDDY, S/o tate Gopi Reddy Aqe} 44 years Occ Business R/o 6-2-461C14, Jammibanda, Khammam Town. Kh"ammam Dist.

¶14

...PETITIONER

¶15

AND

¶16

1 DR MADIRAJU ASHOK. S/o Ram Krishna Rao 'iqv ' Age 52 years, 'lvv^v4 Occ Medical Practitioner R/o Ord Ctub Road, kh;;;;;

¶17

2 M/s Sarasa Chit Funds prt fl{ ,, Rep.by its Managing Director and Foreman 35:',f ?[T:fl il T#: "^{sAl ve n'tTte?wiir;'cii"t'Y", c o;} t;;^{Wv;;' "',}

¶18

3 S:lr:l^{HanumanthaR_a9,.S/o^Venkateswartu} Age 58 years, Occ Manaoino urrector and Foreman of M/s Sarasa Chit F;;; Frt. Lt6lbTb sr",.;;;,"r,,,, Complex. Wyra Road, Khammam fown.

¶19

4 i recror

¶20

flili$ilfl3i]il:^{fl1Jil:i,T: Sf,"*?:#Jsf,,Ji"?,i,?,ii} Hess/D

¶21

t xsl]# Iil:?,',"GtHirlu^{s/o Guruvaiah Ase 82 vears, occ Asricutture} R/o

¶22

b Kolluri Gurunadha Rao, S/o x1ss li [[r #fi ii*^.!!,,nre ;H?,f,FH^{tH Si J ] B ti ?a^ ; :ot,ii,}

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 OF ?.0171CRPMP. NO: 6252 OF 2017\

¶25

Petitrcn rnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to^grant interim injunction restraining the 5th respondent from changing the^physical feature of the subject^lar"rd rn any manner and alienation in favour of any 3rd^party in respect of th= schedul-- property i.e., Plot bearing No. 13 & 14 measuring 740^{'1 5} sq.yards cut of Sy N0 289/A of Khanapuram Haveli. situated near Bank Colony, on By-pass road. Knamman'.^pending disposal of the main CRP

¶26

Cou nse I for the Petitioner: SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI

¶27

Counse I for the Responclent No.1 to 3: NONE APPEARED

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KRISHNA KOSHORE KOVVURI Cou nsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K.MOHAN Cou n sel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P.RAMA SHARANA^SHARMA

¶29

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶30

THE HON,BLE^{SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶31

¶32

i I I I I I

¶33

CIVIL REVISIO^{N PETITION No.4797 oF 2017}

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Thiscivilrevisionpc|itionisfiledbythcallctlon purchaser against^{the orcler datecl llOT 2Ol7 passed in} Fl.P.No.77^{of 2O03 in O S No lT4 ol 2OOlbY thc Senior Civil} .Ilrdge , Khammam

¶36

'2. Pcnding disllosal^{of the petition' one KVenkatesu'arlu} h:rd lrled^{E.A. No. 44512OO3unclerOrder 21 Rule 58 of Codc of} Citil Proccdure^{(for short'CPCJ' but the said petition was not} prcsscd and^{u'aserccordinglydismissed' Thereafter' the Auctior-r} Purchascr^{sought restorationof E'A No 445l2OO3 and E'A No'} 4+al'2OO3,^{but the trial Court'by orderdated 17 'O4 2Ol7 '} refused^{such rcquestand dismissed the same The counself<rr} thedccreelrolder,judgmentdebtor,andClaimpetitionerall prayed lor^{dismissalot the said petition' while only the counsel} lor the Auction^{Purchaser insisted on its continuationOn} pcn-rsal of the^{record,it appearedthat the AuctionPurchaser'} K.Venkata Reddy,^{had participatedinthe auction held on} 22.og .2oO3 and^{\L'as dcciared thehighestbidderfor} Rs.9,65,00O/-. He had^{clepositedone-fourth of the sale price on}

¶37

¶38

the dat. of au('t.()rI^{bur l-ailcd lo pay the lemaining three-fourths} rrithin lrficcr-i rlrr s, thcre^{b1' violatcd Order2 1 Rulc 85 of CPC'} \s tlre cicc rt ,. ltolrit'r, .ltLdgrnerlt^{delrtor, and claim pctrlioner} \('rr: r1o1 ill^('rlsr((1 irt^{t:oittit-luingtllc} llroccedings'^{and sinct: thc} ,,\trction Pr:r-chast'r^{hrrrl ComlTrittccldel:rult itl pzivntent.he could} not insist ttit^{i-otr tit.tuitLiotl o[ this petitiolr Althtlugh the Auction} I)urr:hasct coltlt'ttcLt'(1^{tilart ht: hacl plcfcrred civilrcvision} lreLiIions^{irgainst 1]rt orrlt'rs ol lhis Cr.'lirtclatecl 17 04 2017,no} stav had be('rt^{qrilIlle.l b] thls Court, thc p(ltitiorlrvasdtsmissed'}

¶39

lteartl Sri Srrlvir.ji lla.jir^{Sh<:kar Rao, lcarneclcour-rselfor the} petitioner,^Sri K^{Moharl, Iearnedcoutrsel lor rcspondentNo5} ancl Sri l) Iilrnrlt^{Sll:tI atr:r Sh:rrma, 1e:rrncclcounselfor} rt'spon<l cn t^No.ir.

¶40

'l'he corlI('lltioll ()i- iearned cclt-ttlsel ior the petitioner is that th(' tria[^{(]ourt oughl1o hztve sccn that pclition('r deposited an} anrount ot^{Rs.2,41.25()i- to{'ards 1/4tir o[ the bid amountand} an amoultt ol^{Iis.2().03O/tos'ardspoundagctotalir-rgto} Rs.2,70,2tt0l' on^{tht' clatc o[ auctionitsell i e, on 22 09'2OO3'} Further the balan,:<'^{r,Llnountwas deposilecl on 13 1O'2003 in'ith} the permission^{of (lortrl. As such, therc is no delhult committed}

¶41

,i*?EEir.rFGJlr ,/._/iFn

I I I I

-a---r

by the^{auction purchaser and the trial Court failedto consider} the cx^{parte dccrce passed o1r 11 07'2002and propertywas} attached^{on 19 '03 2003 rvhere:rs thc claim pctitionertrled claim} petition^{claiming that he purch:rsedpropertyon 3O'06'2003ie-'} subsequcnt^{to attachmenl u'hit:h is nor valid in lawThe trial} Court^{oug,htto have seen that dismissal without adjudicating} the^{rights of auction purchaserand ivithout setting aside the} wl-ren the Petitioner^frled sale is^not Permissible^{in lau' and} peUtton^{turcstorct hcIl P} t hc trial^{Court observcd ttrat} petitione^{r l'rercinparid Rs 7,23,7I;0/- towards balancc amount} n,hich^{was not considcredb1'the Lrial Court'}

¶47

Learned^{counsel furthcr submittedthat the petittoner} herein^{filedpetitionuuder Section 151 of CPC to restorethe E P} The same^wasallort'ed obscrving^{thatauction Purchaser} deposited^1/41hamounL on 22.09^{.2OO3 and the remarnrng} was not^{consideredbY the trial} amount on^{13.10 2003 which} are claim Petitioner^{and his son} Court. TIle^{resPondents u'htr} alleged to^{have received lhepropertyunder gift deed,has} no locus standi^{to cl:rirrpropertY as the claim petitionerpurchased} rhe propert5z^{whe n there is an attachment order against the said} property. Therefore,^{requcsted the Court to allow this revision} petition by setting^{aside the impugned order.}

¶48

¶49

(r. L)n the otller hiurd the implead^{petjtioner respondent} No.6 vc hcmcn[l' opposc(i the pclition st.lting that^{the dateof} ilr-lcrrorl i.e., 22.r.)9.20(),1, :rnd the auction^{purchaser has to pay} thc amounL on 0(1,. [O 2OOl]^{u frereas, hi' paid the amoLrnt on} 13.10.2003 rvhich is rtol in^{t'rtnr;lIiaIlt'e ol R.58 of ()rder 21 of} CPC ancl this pt titioncl has^{no locus standi to praythe Court} for rerstor:ltion of Fl.P. its tht:^{decrecholder himsellhas} q'rthdrarr-n r-he Fl.P. ltncl clllirn j)ill.iti()ne I also u'ith<lrtlu n^his petition. Hc furtl-rer^{contendcdthat \'henthc dct:rccLalanlount} u irs alrczLdv paicl to^{tlrt' tlccrec holdcl there is t'lo tlucslionof} conrinuiltion ol^{E.P.Ir ts irlso submittccl thitLthorrgl'r thc amount} deposited^{ttv ituctionprtrchtrscris considcred' lllc stamp dut)'} was nol^{pirid as sr-tch, rcquesteclthe Court to disr-niss this} revision Pctition

¶50

Considtrring^{thr: submissionsmitde b1' the rcspectrve} counselarrdthcrrtaleriitlplaccclorrrer:ord,thercisnodispute with regzrrcl^{to l1lingo1 E P No 77 ol 200'l in (J S'No' I7,1. ol 2OOl} for execution^{of decre c passccltl1' lhc t ri:rl Court Aclmittedlythe} clalm^{petitioner [rled pclition claimingthat he pr-rrchascd the} suit scheduie^{prop(lrt\ron 30 06 2OO3sul;sequenlto the clecree} ancl^{mcan$hilethr' !r'tal Crlurt issued si'le notic" atrd auction} purchase^{rpurctra:;cd t llcsalne inauctiotrand he paidthe}

(

amount as^{prescribed by the RulesMeanwhi le the Decree} holcler ancl the^{ctaimpetitionerfilcd memo on10 03 20 i I} stating that the^{decreeholder reccived anamountol} Rs.4,5O,0OO/^{tou/ardspart satisfactlon of decrectalamountand} not pressed^{the executionpetitionBzrsingon the memo the} trial court crroneouslr^{disnrisscdthc ti.P. When alreadythere} is a sale notice and^{auctlonpurcl-rascrhas purchased the} property, dismissal^{oftr.P., basing onLhc memoitself is} erroneous.^{Further,the obsen'ationsin the said E P, are that} the petitioner hcrcin^{has not paid rcmainingitmount and not} complied Rule 58^{u'hcreasadmittcdly, he paid total amounton} 13.10.2003 but it has to^{bc paid on 06.10 2o03 for whichthe} explanation of learned^{coutlsel fcrr ihc petitioneris that due to} Dussera holidays, rhe Courl^{u'as closedand on the very re-} opening day^{i.e., or-r l3- 10.2OO3he depositedthe amountlt} r,r,as already obsen'ed by^{the same Court in earlier petitionhled} for restoration of^{E.P., u'hichis not considcredby the trial} Court. As such, thc^{matter has to be remandedto the trial} Court to dispose of^{the same ou merits by giving opportunityto} all the parties.

¶56

Accordingly, the Civit Revision^{Petitron is allowedsetting} aside the order dated 11 .O7 .2017^passed in^{E.P.No.77of 20O3}

¶57

¶58

in^().S.h'o.174 of 2001^{br lhc Senior Civil ,ludgc,Khammam and} the m:rt1cr is rt::nilncle d^{back trl thc rrial Court for hearing on} rncrits b.,' gLving^{rpportunrtvro ttll t hc} Partie^{s atld disposcol thc} san1c, as expedit:r;uslv^as llossttllc^{Nri crlsts'}

¶59

Mrscellaneous^{petitions,perldirrg,ilan1', shalI stand}

ckrsed.

,.8??.I39&i'#1'_'

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

t. The Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶67

2 One CC ro SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJT Advocate tOpUCl 3 One CC to SRI KRTSHNA KTSHORE KOWURIAd 4 one cc to sRr K r\4oHAN foPuc] 5 .ne cc to sRr , -^ri:#ffii::ffi,^ ^^,,^:";^-,:::,vuxrAovocate

¶68